Api settings general force language create

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no mention of required permissions, whether the change is reversible, or what a repeated call does despite non-idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single identifier with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness - there is no front-loaded purpose, no verb-object statement, and no structure beyond the slug.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A mutation tool with a free-form body, no output schema, and no annotations explaining side effects needs substantial description to be callable. Nothing here explains what is created, in what scope, or with what payload, so the definition is functionally incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'body' parameter is an untyped free-form object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not name a single field, format, or required key. The agent has no way to construct a valid payload from either the schema or the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is the tool name repeated verbatim ('api_settings_general_force_language_create'), which is a tautology rather than an explanation. An agent can infer from the slug that it touches general API settings around forcing a language, but the description itself states nothing about what is created or what 'force language' means.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. Siblings such as api_settings_general_default_language_retrieve and api_settings_general_update exist and are indistinguishable from this description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.